miaow wrote:Ken Owens, Guirado, and- up until last weekend- Fraser Brown. You then have a decent case for saying Hartley's captained his team and thrown into the lineout better than Best has, and that George has shown he can make the Tour based on his ability, albeit from the bench, too.

Another poor performance at the lineout, and I genuinely think Best misses out.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Guirado cant be selected for the Lions, silly comment. So if only Ken Owens has been better over all that must mean that Best is a shoe in for inclusion if three are selected?

Hartley definitely has not been better, George hasn't featured enough to be considered better and Brown hasn't exactly made a rock solid case for himself.

Not silly at all. Best has only performed better than Italy's hooker, which is not a standard that will get you selected for the Lions. Every other Home Nations hooker- including two from England- has been at worst on par but more often than not better than Best in most facets of play, and that's saying something considering one starts on the bench, and the other hasn't been in top form and been withdrawn before the hour mark.

I really don't know how you interpreted my comment stating that there were 4 Home Nations hookers in better form than Best as 'Best is second choice and therefore a shoe in'. Strange reading indeed.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Bests throwing has been fine. Irelands lineout issues are more down to the fact that we only have two good jumpers when POM doesnt start. The throws tend to go wrong when they go to Stander who isnt the tallest guy. Each time we lost out lineout against Wales the call was anticipated by AWJ, that isnt a throwing issue.

There is a lot more to a lineout than just the throw.

The Welsh lineout has improved dramatically since they've started throwing to Tipuric and Warburton more often. The height of Stander is a cop out, and whilst Best isn't solely responsible for a poor Irish lineout, he has history of wobbling with his throwing, and as captain, he's been sub par in the two games Ireland have lost this championship. He's not a Gatland favourite to begin with, and as excellent as a player he is in open play, he just hasn't produced as Ireland captain and hooker this tournament.

My abiding memory of Rory Best is that game he captained against the Brumbies on the last tour. He had a shocker of a game and the Lions lost.

After the game, Best admitted that the Brumbies wanted it more. Playing in the Lions should be a lifelong dream for anyone eligible with any sort of interest in rugby. The players were potentially playing for a spot in the test series and the captain meekly says that the opposition wanted it more. Not good enough.

Might be unfair, and I'm sure he's done plenty of good since then, but I'd have a doubt over him, especially for the Lions.

In truth, a lot of our hookers are much of a muchness. We don't have a Coles, a Creevey or a Guirardo. But if I could find 3 other decent hookers I'd take them instead of Best.

Judging a hooker purely based on percentages is misleading. Firstly success depends on the jumpers and lifters as much as the thrower. Secondly it depends on how many risks are being taken. It appears to me that in attacking situations Wales tend to throw mostly to the front in order to ensure possession whilst England tend to throw long in order to get quick ball to the backs. The former will flatter the thrower. That latter if done well, as on Saturday, will result in tries.

robbo277 wrote:He got penalised for delaying the throw I think. As the offence is by definition before the ball is thrown, it doesn't count as a "lost" line-out, more a lost opportunity at throwing into a line-out.

Either way, it was a line-out error. Although I'd say it was probably that no-one in the line-out jumped for him, rather than Hartley's error.

Hartley's reaction, which was to delay the throw as long as possible and then just launch it into play in a vain attempt to not be pinged, was probably the best he could do under the circumstances.

Yeah it was a Free-kick for delaying the throw. Itoje and Borthwick said later that the young Saracen was at fault - he had made a call where he was meant to be the lifter, then went to the wrong place. Hartley tried to delay and hope someone would be looking and he could rescue the situation, but then panicked and hit the back of Cole's head. All rather amusing.

Best and his jumpers have been out of sync in a few big lineouts this season, where they had kicked for the corner and were then turned over. That sort of thing does tend to stay in people's minds far more than the successful throws.

Hartley's throwing against Scotland was the best I have seen from an England hooker for a long time. Englands first three tries all came from Hartley to Lawes throws. While the first was caught and set, the next two were long, palmed down of the top by Lawes to Youngs and the England runners had space they would not have received either from multi-phase possession or a standard lineout.

Personally I do not feel there are any outstanding hooker candidates, with any of the options being much of a muchness. I would not be surprised to see Best go on tour, but equally I would not be surprised if Gats left him out again.

Exiledinborders wrote:Judging a hooker purely based on percentages is misleading. Firstly success depends on the jumpers and lifters as much as the thrower. Secondly it depends on how many risks are being taken. It appears to me that in attacking situations Wales tend to throw mostly to the front in order to ensure possession whilst England tend to throw long in order to get quick ball to the backs. The former will flatter the thrower. That latter if done well, as on Saturday, will result in tries.

Does this mean that I need to re-visit my view that Ross Ford is 100% rubbish?

robbo277 wrote:He got penalised for delaying the throw I think. As the offence is by definition before the ball is thrown, it doesn't count as a "lost" line-out, more a lost opportunity at throwing into a line-out.

Either way, it was a line-out error. Although I'd say it was probably that no-one in the line-out jumped for him, rather than Hartley's error.

Hartley's reaction, which was to delay the throw as long as possible and then just launch it into play in a vain attempt to not be pinged, was probably the best he could do under the circumstances.

Yeah it was a Free-kick for delaying the throw. Itoje and Borthwick said later that the young Saracen was at fault - he had made a call where he was meant to be the lifter, then went to the wrong place. Hartley tried to delay and hope someone would be looking and he could rescue the situation, but then panicked and hit the back of Cole's head. All rather amusing.

Best and his jumpers have been out of sync in a few big lineouts this season, where they had kicked for the corner and were then turned over. That sort of thing does tend to stay in people's minds far more than the successful throws.

Hartley's throwing against Scotland was the best I have seen from an England hooker for a long time. Englands first three tries all came from Hartley to Lawes throws. While the first was caught and set, the next two were long, palmed down of the top by Lawes to Youngs and the England runners had space they would not have received either from multi-phase possession or a standard lineout.

Personally I do not feel there are any outstanding hooker candidates, with any of the options being much of a muchness. I would not be surprised to see Best go on tour, but equally I would not be surprised if Gats left him out again.

According to the guardian 5 of England's 7 tries came directly from lineouts. When you can use the lineout as a way to vary your play and keep the opposition guessing it really helps.

robbo277 wrote:He got penalised for delaying the throw I think. As the offence is by definition before the ball is thrown, it doesn't count as a "lost" line-out, more a lost opportunity at throwing into a line-out.

Either way, it was a line-out error. Although I'd say it was probably that no-one in the line-out jumped for him, rather than Hartley's error.

Hartley's reaction, which was to delay the throw as long as possible and then just launch it into play in a vain attempt to not be pinged, was probably the best he could do under the circumstances.

Yeah it was a Free-kick for delaying the throw. Itoje and Borthwick said later that the young Saracen was at fault - he had made a call where he was meant to be the lifter, then went to the wrong place. Hartley tried to delay and hope someone would be looking and he could rescue the situation, but then panicked and hit the back of Cole's head. All rather amusing.

Best and his jumpers have been out of sync in a few big lineouts this season, where they had kicked for the corner and were then turned over. That sort of thing does tend to stay in people's minds far more than the successful throws.

Hartley's throwing against Scotland was the best I have seen from an England hooker for a long time. Englands first three tries all came from Hartley to Lawes throws. While the first was caught and set, the next two were long, palmed down of the top by Lawes to Youngs and the England runners had space they would not have received either from multi-phase possession or a standard lineout.

Personally I do not feel there are any outstanding hooker candidates, with any of the options being much of a muchness. I would not be surprised to see Best go on tour, but equally I would not be surprised if Gats left him out again.

According to the guardian 5 of England's 7 tries came directly from lineouts. When you can use the lineout as a way to vary your play and keep the opposition guessing it really helps.

I particularly liked Billy's try assist from the lineout.

I think the question of Lions captain is wrapped up in the larger question of leadership, not simply who is the better player. I believe there is merit to bringing existing leaders and captains into the team. Not that Hartley, Best, AWJ, and Laidlaw (if healthy) would all merit a Lions selection, let alone Test Squad selection. But having people who lead their national teams in the Lions squad would be a huge benefit. Now, maybe that is my army background coming out (Though a profound and documented disrespect for all authority has characterized my on-again, off-again relationship with HM Armed Forces. Not really sure where that comes from. F**k me). But I believe leadership, with true designated leaders who have the skills to truly lead, can change teams dramatically. I see this at work, and we see it with the England squad. I think it would be pretty amazing to see the Lions come on the pitch for the first Test, with Laidlaw, Hartley, and AWJ all starting (Warburton too), with Best on the bench. What a powerful message it would send.............

"I think it would be pretty amazing to see the Lions come on the pitch for the first Test, with Laidlaw, Hartley, and AWJ all starting (Warburton too), with Best on the bench. What a powerful message it would send............. "

Robshaw on the bench too would be awesome. very underrated player who has proven a lot of people wrong, myself included.

I don't actually think AWJ,Hartley and Laidlaw are the most valuable players in their teams despite the hype surrounding them.

Scotland wouldn't have beaten England with Laidlaw in at 9. Scotland still beat Wales without him. The loss of Hogg and the dismantling of the pack were far more important in my opinion.

AWJ whilst a good player I don't feel inspires Wales like an in form North can do. North was a real handful for Ireland. Warburton without the captaincy seems to be free of burden.

As for England, I don't think it's Hartley whose been the difference really, it's been others outperforming him consistently.

Against Italy, it wasn't Hartley leading the way, he was perhaps one of the most clueless players on the pitch. Against Scotland he played well but was part of a collective effort. He has been inspired by others, not the other way round. It's the likes of Haskell,Itoje,Launchbury and Lawes who've been trying to galvanise the rest of the pack.

It's the players who step up in adversity, those who you can count on when the chips are down. Jones got Hartley off just after half time vs Wales.

Well it is not as we all know. But Ireland will wan't to win this game more than England do... For Ireland it is fighting back from the malling they took from Wales lat week, and to put pride back into the team and the supporters who follow them

For England it is more to do with keeping their unbeaten run going, winning the Grand Slam.

Am expecting a tough fight from Ireland, it could down to selection issues, for Ireland....Did they sustain many injuries last week? cannot remember.

I do believe England can win. would like to say 61 21 to England. But would be very surprised if the score is as wide as that. But you never know. Was not expecting that much of a gap last week to be honest.

majesticimperialman wrote:Before the 6ns this game was supposed to be the Grand Slam Decider.

Well it is not as we all know. But Ireland will wan't to win this game more than England do... For Ireland it is fighting back from the malling they took from Wales lat week, and to put pride back into the team and the supporters who follow them

For England it is more to do with keeping their unbeaten run going, winning the Grand Slam.

Am expecting a tough fight from Ireland, it could down to selection issues, for Ireland....Did they sustain many injuries last week? cannot remember.

I do believe England can win. would like to say 61 21 to England. But would be very surprised if the score is as wide as that. But you never know. Was not expecting that much of a gap last week to be honest.

Jones called the game a "dress rehearsal for a World Cup Final" and a "once in a lifetime opportunity" just yesterday. Ireland would have to go some to want it more than that.

SecretFly wrote:Jesus God! Listening to some people here is like travelling in a time machine.

Remember England at the last World Cup, in their own Country? Who would'a thought life would go on and they'd now be looking at a double Grand Slam and a pseudo winning sequence record?

Time moves on, folks. Forget the barn door, they no longer use barn doors in rugby ever since World Rugby outlawed them straight after the last LIONS (bow lowly) tour.

Maybe I haven't watched enough Best since, fully prepared to admit that, but for me that was a huge moment for him and he blew it.

He might have atoned for it since, you'd know better than me. But he hasn't been tearing up trees this Six Nations, and I'd be looking elsewhere first.

Of course you would - you're English, robbo. The Lions can have who they like - it doesn't bother me. But rating a player on what he did a few years ago can be done on all players. As I said, just look at the attitudes to Welsh current Captain in this very 6N and English current Captain in this very 6N. There are a lot of us in glasshouses and we all have a little collection of stones in our pokittses.

BBC wrote:England can "achieve greatness" by completing a second straight Grand Slam against Ireland next weekend and breaking New Zealand's record of 18 consecutive wins, says Eddie Jones.

Sounds like Jones thinks this is the most important game he's faced so far. He obviously thinks his players can take that heaped on pressure.

Must be heartening for Schmidt to know that EJ would consider a win over a misfiring Ireland to be the difference between greatness and 'same old flattering to deceive' hype?

I hope Joe Schmidt is wearing ear-muffs all this week - team too. Because he and the team misfired dramatically last weekend.

We need major improvements all over the field and back to at least concentrating on Joe's admittedly limited plan. So, rather than juice themselves up by using anything Eddie might say about England's attitude to the game, our team should just do their preparations coldly and clinically on what England actually does on the field and trying to find ways to disrupt some of it.

Forget England's record, don't give a damn about what Eddie's definition of 'greatness' is; keep to the video studies and training field plans.

I don't actually think AWJ,Hartley and Laidlaw are the most valuable players in their teams despite the hype surrounding them.

Scotland wouldn't have beaten England with Laidlaw in at 9. Scotland still beat Wales without him. The loss of Hogg and the dismantling of the pack were far more important in my opinion.

AWJ whilst a good player I don't feel inspires Wales like an in form North can do. North was a real handful for Ireland. Warburton without the captaincy seems to be free of burden.

As for England, I don't think it's Hartley whose been the difference really, it's been others outperforming him consistently.

Against Italy, it wasn't Hartley leading the way, he was perhaps one of the most clueless players on the pitch. Against Scotland he played well but was part of a collective effort. He has been inspired by others, not the other way round. It's the likes of Haskell,Itoje,Launchbury and Lawes who've been trying to galvanise the rest of the pack.

It's the players who step up in adversity, those who you can count on when the chips are down. Jones got Hartley off just after half time vs Wales.

I agree, I loathe the cult of leadership. Clarity of thought and purpose and all that, fine, but the glorious leader myth is just that I think.

I don't actually think AWJ,Hartley and Laidlaw are the most valuable players in their teams despite the hype surrounding them.

Scotland wouldn't have beaten England with Laidlaw in at 9. Scotland still beat Wales without him. The loss of Hogg and the dismantling of the pack were far more important in my opinion.

AWJ whilst a good player I don't feel inspires Wales like an in form North can do. North was a real handful for Ireland. Warburton without the captaincy seems to be free of burden.

As for England, I don't think it's Hartley whose been the difference really, it's been others outperforming him consistently.

Against Italy, it wasn't Hartley leading the way, he was perhaps one of the most clueless players on the pitch. Against Scotland he played well but was part of a collective effort. He has been inspired by others, not the other way round. It's the likes of Haskell,Itoje,Launchbury and Lawes who've been trying to galvanise the rest of the pack.

It's the players who step up in adversity, those who you can count on when the chips are down. Jones got Hartley off just after half time vs Wales.

I agree, I loathe the cult of leadership. Clarity of thought and purpose and all that, fine, but the glorious leader myth is just that I think.

Well sometimes it is and sometimes it isnt. Put it this way - if your leader is called richard head it can certainly have an adverse effect on performance so why not the opposite?

With Daly still undergoing return to play protocol, May is included in addition to the matchday 23 as he was last week.

There may also be a doubt over one of the Hartley or George as Tommy Taylor is retained.

May was still with them as a 24th squad mebbes right up till matchday, so add in Daly's broken nose and RTP no surprise he is retained. Taylor's inclusion does, as you say, suggest one of the incumbents has an injury doubt.

On a serious note there's going to be a bit of pressure on Taylor if he needs to play. Lineouts were an issue earlier in his career so if he comes through he'll be making huge strides in pushing his own case. Quality player.